Stephan George Schick

My husband was appointed Mr. Schick for his defense in 1992. He has been wrongfully imprisoned for murder in New York state since November of 1992. But before unraveling the issues and facts, I ask you : Do you feel secure in your liberty and justice knowing that the following circumstances exist to ...deprive people of their freedom and lives ? There was a trial, but the Legal Aid defense attorney who handles the case made no meaningful defensive investigation. Angry at my husbands refusal to accept a plea deal for a crime he did not do, Legal Aid worked to prevent an effective defense. Identification procedures were found by the court to have been " certainly suggestive" but allowed. Indications of misidentification at key points are indicated, but ignored. Over a dozen police reports, and accounts from at least four additional witnesses are being withheld by the prosecution. Also, crucial evidence such as the deceased's leather jacket, pants. underwear, boots and socks, as well as hospital x-rays, autopsy photos, weapons, and blood samples are absent or not being disclosed by the prosecution. These and other indications of evidence manipulation went unchallenged and ignored by Legal Aid. The jury itself was unfair and biased. Prejudicial evidence suppressed by the court nevertheless reached the jury without the courts knowledge. On record, Legal Aid refused to inquire into objections to the unfair jury. On other occasions some jurors maintained their biased intent to view all evidence in favor of guilt. Some declared their social connections to those prosecuting the case yet were never removed from acting as a jury member . Legal Aid refused to act upon any of this. It is even demonstrated that the Legal Aid attorney, and an intern, both perjured themselves on the stand to prevent my relief in a post-trail issue. But the court chose to protect the attorney's careers and ignore this falseness rather than rule in my favor. Taken together with other specifics of the case, the unreliable and unjust nature of this New York conviction should be apparent